Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
with troops serving in afghanistan yesterday. the soldiers admiral mullen talked with weren't asked about how a troop drawdown would affect them. they asked if they would get paid if the republicans forced the united states government to stop paying its bills. the region that has been rocked by violence and plagued by sue coyed bombers this month, they wondered how they would take care of the families if the checks stopped coming next month. let me read a little bit of that press story that came out yesterday. quote -- "half a world away from the capitol -- capitol hill deadlock -- the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on the u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question among them is one a top u.s. military officer wouldn't answer: will we get paid?" end of quote. admiral mullen went on to say, "i don't know the teens that question, but either way, those soldiers" he said, "all of us must continue to work every day." mr. president, this is really unacceptable. a country as rich and powerful as ours, men and women with bombs going off around them, shouldn't worry about whether this
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
the wars in iraqnd and afghanistan, which the republicans are calling a budgetary gimmick and not real savings. the yet, the ryan budget, which almost a every house and senate republican voted for, counted the same cuts almost identically. so, they say it is real savings to thee ryan plan with state savings in the reid proposal.-- i am sorry, but you can't have it both ways. reid' further, senator reid's plan actually is all cuts. i don't necessarily like that. contains dollar for dollar spending cuts to match the debtt ceiling increase. mh as much as i don't like this aspect of it, it doesn't include any revenues. even though a "washington post" abc newsabc poll said that 72% f the american public believes we should have those makingma over. $250,000 pay more. 72%.lo what republicans haveng wanted l along and now we are giving it to wen them. and all of the cuts and plans up and supported by republicans in the past. so, we are presentingse a plan that is all cuts, no revenue. the pretense that they are using to reject it just doesn't pass the j smell test. and according to cbo, it sav
in afghanistan. it was an ill-conceived scheme. so on that resistance existed in congress and the american politics was basically correct. all the people who oppose the war were smart and president bush and his lieutenants were wrong. i have to be very clear here i do not think president bush and his lieutenants life for selfish reasons. they lied and they took the united states to the war and iraq because they thought that was in the american national interest. they thought they were doing good for america but the fact is they didn't. they didn't pursue a smart policy, and the naysayers have the stronger hand to play and it's just too bad they didn't carry it. estimate 1976 jimmy carter's campaign i will never lie to you was one of the lines he used to read did he live up to that? >> he told of least one why i know of and that is when it became clear that the iran rescue mission was going to be exposed she had his press secretary lie to the newsman who smelled this operation was about to take place president carter and jody powell did the right thing. i'm sure none of them felt good about
there, as little afghanistan's. so a year ago al-shabaab conducted the first attacks, actually outside of somalia. they killed 76 people, including one american in uganda. so there's a growing concern that al-shabaab leaders are striving to strike targets, not just beyond somalia now, but beyond africa. a european plot was recently uncovered. it was in the works and it was uncovered. so links between al-shabaab and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the most active of all of the al qaeda franchises, are becoming clearer and clearer to us in the united states. they are communicating more about operations. they are working together on training. they are working together on tactics. the bomb making capability that al qaeda has, the expertise that they have there is being combined with al-shabaab's recruits. and these recruits frequently have western passports. many of them have u.s. passports. this is quite a deadly combination. and that's why last month, then cia director panetta called al-shabaab's threat to the u.s. homeland in his words significant and on the rise. u.s. forces have be
in afghanistan in a strategy of nation building that is not the best use of our national security, not the best use of our soldiers who are there to fight for our national security, but those are decisions that were made in the past. and we must pay the bill on those decisions even when i disagreed with them. and then we need to put together a plan that takes on our deficit and our debt, and that plan has to put all of the options on the table. some of my colleagues across the aisle, they said, well, we want to protect the tax spending programs where we've tucked in tax provisions for the wealthy and the well connected. we want to defend those. we don't want to touch those for the best-off americans. but we want to cut the programs for working americans. that is unacceptable. we have seen enormous increase in the disparity between the wages and welfare of our citizens in general and the best-off becoming much, much wealthier proportionately. we can't continue to say that we're going to protect the well-connected while attacking working families. that's not the america we want to build. we want
military to be getting the news in afghanistan and iraq of all the upheaval in washington, because they're getting the news, of course. and for them to worry, oh, my gosh what happens august 2 if my paycheck isn't there or my wife or my husband -- for my wife or my husband to be able to use that to pay our mortgage or the basic expenses? i just want to put it in perspective here. we have people in the military with boots on the ground by the thousands that are making under $20,000 a year. now, those are people who are living paycheck to paycheck. they don't have the luxury of having a big savings account with that kind of income, and especially if they've got children. my goodness, they're making under $18,000 a year, some of these younger junior members of the enlisted corps. so i don't think we ought to make them worry for ten seconds if they can pay their basic bills for their housing and the food for their families. in my state of texas, there are 28,000 brave men and women deployed in the support of operations in iraq and afghanistan. there are more than 97,000 service members depl
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
to go to for jihadists and afghanistan, iran, excuse me, afghanistan, iraq, pakistan or yemen but as many as two dozen muslim americans and al-shabaab with many cases trained by al qaeda leaders remain unaccounted for. the committee has found that all chabad related federal prosecutions for funding, recruiting and attempting to join al-shabaab are the largest number and most significant upward trend in the terror cases filed for the justice department over the past two years. least 38 cases have been unsealed since 2009. minnesota, ohio, california, new jersey, new york, illinois, alabama, virginia and texas three al-shabaab is recruiting inside american mosques and disalle communities like minneapolis and san diego. according to the justice department. this month and also of recruiter pleaded guilty to a recording a large group of muslims from minneapolis at mosques and without any known protest moscow's leaders. a top also leader in somalia supervised this recruiting. one minnesota recruited was a suicide bomber whose 2008 attack on northern somalia send shock waves of alarm
iraq and afghanistan sooner than many here would like or that the president would like, and save substantial sums if we do that. most certainly if we're going to go forward with shared sacrifice, yes, we do have to ask billions, despite all of their power and all of their campaign contributions and all of their lobbying, maybe the billionaires who are doing phenomenally well may have to contribute to deficit reduction. yes, maybe those companies that stash their money in tax hyphens in pwerpld and the cayman eye hraldz -- in bermuda and the cayman islands, maybe they are going to have to start paying their fair share. on my web site which is sanders.senate.gov, i put a small letter which said to the president, mr. president, stand tall. take on these right-wing ideologues who want to make devastating cuts to working families. and in a couple of weeks we have 135,000 signatures on that letter, and i think that letter reflects what the american people want. they want shared sacrifice. they do not want to see the elderly, the kids or working families being battered more and more, es
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of government could cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy and the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understan
. even in afghanistan, they call the areas where they're doing all the bombing the tribal areas. and i was wondering if you could just speak to the fact that indigenous people all over the world are under attack. and is there some way we can get this out into the press so they can understand that this should be stopped immediately? >> guest: well, what you're saying was true. i was just in norway and did a performance with a sammi person and a notga woman in india who were under attack by the burmese. and what i think it is there's always the land hunger, the taking over for land. and the indigenous people are vulnerable because they're in isolated areas or they're in places that they were sent that suddenly have resources available that others want, for instance, chevron, you know, has been -- i think it's costa rica has just covered the people of the land, the water and all the animals in oil. and so we think about -- what we think about the oil in the gulf but we don't realize that's happening in our regions as well. so it should be published. it should be in papers. and it's very d
bring our combat troops home fromex afghanistan, that we can expect the international community to do more than we can bring about savings on the military side. let me talk about the last major component of the conrad budgetly and how it differs substantially from the ryan budget. not a serious revenues. i know there's been a lot of so discussion about revenues. so what does the democratic budget due in this regard? it takes i revenues to 19.5% of our gross domestic product, gdp. mr. president, that is t phe sae amount of us raised on the clinton presidency when we had unprecedented prosperity and jow growth in america. now, how do wehe get there? how do we get the revenues that we need in order to be able to h bring this debt under control? well, senator conrad has given us some direction on how we canr do that. he has pointed out that sheltere and loopholes need to be closede these are inefficiencies in our kax code today. tal i take the floor on two occasions recently to talk aboue some that i think we shouldat eliminate pier one, the ethanole subsidy.ubsidy. the majority of the se
with afghanistan, and over the years the number has gone up steadily. in the first few years in the strikes of 2,042,007 they're just a handful and then we see it going up in 2010. the obama administration rising at a policy never fully publicly articulated. 118 strikes last year and 45 so far this year. the pakistanis said a couple of months ago that they wanted him stopped them stopped and they ordered the cia out in their base in pakistan were some of the strikes are being launched. by my reckoning there is than a dozen since then. so has this been done like the enlightened raid against the will of the pakistan government? put the whole thing in a different legal contextualization. we don't know that for sure but we know the americans are defensive about in last month for example john brennan tried to relay concerns he took to new targeting procedure and he said that in the past year there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency precision of the capabilities we have been able to develop. in other words because they have been checking much more carefully th
and negative impact with few options to detain terrace outside of afghanistan progress read drawn down there we will lose the option. i am sure you seen press story saying the united states may kill the terrace but not trying ferry hard to ras ure them. lothtion becauseb it has been taken offt the table and this is why end of the best ways to get to intelligence and prevent future threats. so we congratulate you on your nomination and these issues need to be laid on the table and flush out the ku saysco it will be you. so many instances we need too>> certainly have that feeling of trust that we have developed and need to develop stronger over the coming years while you were in this position. >> thank you mr. vice-chairman now i will recognize the distinguished senator from north dakota on that democratic side, it can conrad. >> thank you. u, thank you vice-chairman and senator senators, i am delighted to be introducing match olson. parents are from northh dakota and people who might have known for a very long time.ti by his roots are deep and returns every chance he gets with hisdak family and
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19